Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[ohiobill]

You say lots of things but like habituator's excuses for not providing evidence of their claims a lot is left unsaid. I think you misunderstand what constitutes evidence and how to go about collecting it. I think your insistence on basing your investigative approach on your friend the lawyer's advice rather than on the advice of a field biologist is telling. For someone who incessantly calls for science to investigate this mystery perhaps a little research on how science approaches investigations would be a good thing to have and wouldn't cost you anything but time. I'm not sure what you feel your repeated calls to investigate unproveable eyewitness accounts will bring? Science has investigated footprints but w/o a comparison w/a sample only unproven theories can be postulated. Science is currently investigating DNA evidence in two studies. Science will not investigate unproveable eyewitness accounts because they aren't evidence regardless of the frequency or stridency of the requests and how many lawyers you consult. Rather than consult lawyers about bigfoot, consult what science has to examine. Start w/the fossil record of North America, examine the available physical specimens, consult the DNA results as currently available and ask what more does science need? If you disagree just lawyer up and get an opinion you like. Just remember talk is cheap until you have a lawyer do it for you!

[Guest DWA]

I SAID:

How many times do I have to say this? If you disagree, stop taking it up with me! Take it up with the scientists who agree with me.

Jeff Meldrum is taking all my calls, got it? (John Bindernagel takes over on weekends.)

Unlike all those field biologists you set so much store by, nobody will be asking Jeff: how the HECK did you miss this!!?!?!?!? when the sasquatch is confirmed. Trust me, I know the score here. And mainstream science is one model you don't want to cite to me on this topic. Re-read my posts until you understand where I'm coming from.

Until then, you need more luck then you are likely going to have.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

I get a kick out of how some people on here think they can define evidence to fit what ever definition they want. Foot prints, eyewitness accounts, audio, blurry images, blurry film, are all indeed evidence. They may not be definitive, or enough to classify the subject, but they are indeed evidence. Take a look at the thermal video just posted by Jrid., and the follow up by Cliff. There is some good evidence there, still can't fully classify it, so I guess we can say its not proof, but it is some great evidence.

If the so called skeptics on here choose to ignore the evidence, all the power to them. I have yet to meet a real scientist that out right dismiss's the claims as the so called internet skeptics do, the worst I have heard from a real scientist is they doubt something. Not one of them has asked if I am on medication. I get mad at myself for even posting in this thread.

[Guest DWA]

I get a kick out of how some people on here think they can define evidence to fit what ever definition they want. Foot prints, eyewitness accounts, audio, blurry images, blurry film, are all indeed evidence. They may not be definitive, or enough to classify the subject, but they are indeed evidence. Take a look at the thermal video just posted by Jrid., and the follow up by Cliff. There is some good evidence there, still can't fully classify it, so I guess we can say its not proof, but it is some great evidence.

If the so called skeptics on here choose to ignore the evidence, all the power to them. I have yet to meet a real scientist that out right dismiss's the claims as the so called internet skeptics do, the worst I have heard from a real scientist is they doubt something. Not one of them has asked if I am on medication. I get mad at myself for even posting in this thread.

I'm with you, but I can't seem to help it. There is a kind of fun in showing people how to think, but when they choose otherwise, oh well.

Edited December 1, 2012 by DWA

[Guest RayG]

Cumulative evidence, in compelling amounts, must always be grouped and considered with all other similar correlated evidence.

He's a lawyer, but he nailed it.

Lawyers aren't scientists and neither am I, but I'd say he's hammering with a marshmallow. It isn't the quantity of evidence that counts, it's the quality. If no track has ever been matched to an actual foot how was it determined they were bigfoot tracks?

There has never been a fake in this field that isn't obvious, and ham-handed. (You need to show me otherwise.)

You've heard of the Elbe trackway, right? That one wasn't so obvious. It had long-time bigfoot enthusiasts saying things like: amazing track find; historic; best trackway find yet; set a new standard; Rosetta stone; I assure you the tracks are not fake... they were the real deal; the tracks are real...

If the Elbe trackway can look so convincing, seem real, set a new standard, etc., yet turn out to be hoaxed, why can't some of those old trackways be considered suspect? Because most of us footers won't go down that road. We don't want to cast a critical eye on the evidence, don't want the mystique to crumble before us.

Hand-wringing over the lack of scientific involvement won't matter unless or until someone brings in some evidence that can be truly matched to a bigfoot. Even some of the scientists who are huge proponents of bigfoot will tell you that, and history is on their side so far. Not a single scrap of evidence has led to the scientific identification and classification of a critter we know and love as bigfoot or sasquatch. No body, no DNA, nothing. So, given the lack of verifiable evidence, where do you propose these scientists that refuse to take bigfoot seriously begin their search? Will reading Bindernagel and Alley convince them?

RayG

[ohiobill]

I SAID:

How many times do I have to say this? If you disagree, stop taking it up with me! Take it up with the scientists who agree with me.

i don't disagree w/all the scientist's who believe that anecdotal sightings aren't proof of a creature. I don't know any scientist's who do believe that sightings alone are proof of bigfoot's existence. I disagree w/YOUR position that science must consider anonymous sighting reports from years past as evidence of existence. I feel it as relevant as any habituator's claims brought forward w/o evidence. I disagree that science hasn't examined the EVIDENCE brought forward in the form of footprints and DNA. We are waiting on results on DNA and a body for foot comparison. Science can't study the fossil record for clues because we have none so far in North America. There are no type specimens to examine. Science is investigating the ONLY physical evidence but has not been able to prove existence -not from lack of consideration but from lack of evidence. You and Moneymaker may believe that every sighting and noise in the woods is proof of bigfoot's existence but science doesn't approach things the same way. It's ok to disagree w/me and any scientist you want to but please educate yourself on how science actually works before calling for investigation. Science can neither prove nor disprove anonymous sightings that leave no evidence so it won't happen and can't. It would be a waste of time -like asking a habituator to provide proof of their claims.

[Guest DWA]

i don't disagree w/all the scientist's who believe that anecdotal sightings aren't proof of a creature. I don't know any scientist's who do believe that sightings alone are proof of bigfoot's existence. I disagree w/YOUR position that science must consider anonymous sighting reports from years past as evidence of existence. I feel it as relevant as any habituator's claims brought forward w/o evidence. I disagree that science hasn't examined the EVIDENCE brought forward in the form of footprints and DNA. We are waiting on results on DNA and a body for foot comparison. Science can't study the fossil record for clues because we have none so far in North America. There are no type specimens to examine. Science is investigating the ONLY physical evidence but has not been able to prove existence -not from lack of consideration but from lack of evidence. You and Moneymaker may believe that every sighting and noise in the woods is proof of bigfoot's existence but science doesn't approach things the same way. It's ok to disagree w/me and any scientist you want to but please educate yourself on how science actually works before calling for investigation. Science can neither prove nor disprove anonymous sightings that leave no evidence so it won't happen and can't. It would be a waste of time -like asking a habituator to provide proof of their claims.

Why mischaracterize my position?

In terms of what skepticism truly means if it means anything productive, I seem to be the most skeptical person here. I certainly never make assumptions like the ones you have made.

Sorry, but the sighting reports are gonna be held against the mainstream when this animal is confirmed. There won't be any appeal then.

[ohiobill]

No need to mischaracterize your position - it's doing poorly enough on it's own. Until you can tell science how to investigate eyewitness sightings w/no physical evidence or find a scientist who proves that such a sighting is proof of bigfoot's existence your repeated calls for science to investigate will continue to produce nothing - like a habituator's inability to produce evidence from their stories. Lack of critical thinking isn't helping your position but I look forward to your skeptical investigations of sighting reports (whenever you start) and more of your lawyer friend's insights.

[salubrious]

You've heard of the Elbe trackway, right? That one wasn't so obvious. It had long-time bigfoot enthusiasts saying things like: amazing track find; historic; best trackway find yet; set a new standard; Rosetta stone; I assure you the tracks are not fake... they were the real deal; the tracks are real...

If the Elbe trackway can look so convincing, seem real, set a new standard, etc., yet turn out to be hoaxed, why can't some of those old trackways be considered suspect? Because most of us footers won't go down that road. We don't want to cast a critical eye on the evidence, don't want the mystique to crumble before us.

Uh, Ray, its not obvious from your post but are you aware that it was the *researchers*, not skeptics, that declared that one a hoax?? If you wanted to use a bad example to make your point, then you did a good job.

[Guest RayG]

Yes, I'm well aware of it, hence the "turn out to be hoaxed" that I wrote.

I'm also well aware that the onsite investigators didn't declare it a hoax from the beginning, and the descriptive terms they were using shows that.

Since we haven't had a full explanation of events, we can only guess how the trackway was determined to be a hoax, and it's my guess that it wasn't the trackway itself, but events and circumstances apart from the trackway.

I don't see how it weakens my question about considering the old trackways suspect.

RayG

[Guest]

Re: Bindernagel - I believe that several years ago he asked for, and was granted, the opportunity to speak at the annual meeting of the American Society of Mammalogists. I think this was in Oregon. I was not there, but heard from colleagues that his talk was very well attended.

This is another example of mainstream science engaging in bigfoot.

Again, we can choose to spead disingenuous information of the attitudes of mainstream science toward all things bigfoot, but the more responsible approach would be to acknowledge that several mainstream scientists - Binderbagel among them - have considered bigfoot evidence and do consider bigfoot evidence and occasionally make inroads with their mainstream scientific societies. The fact that there was no sea change at the American Society of Mammalogists following Bindernagel's talk was not because there's some grand conspiracy to squelch bigfoot acceptance, it's because Bindernagel's presentation did not include his description of a bigfoot specimen he had examined and curated somewhere.

Remember, if what you want "scientists" to do is organize some kind of massive field investigation to bag a bigfoot, then your efforts need to be pointed at the NSF, NIH, USDA, etc., who could fund such an effort, and not at the rank-and-file scientists who would be the ones to develop proposals to actually do the work. To get government funding agencies to allocate research toward the search for bigfoot, then that begins with pressure applied to your elected officials in Congress. Good luck with that.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest DWA]

If science doesn't want to devote the time to gathering the specimen the specimen won't be gathered. Simple as that.

I hope no one thought Bindernagel was going to unveil a bigfoot at that meeting. I sure wouldn't have expected it. And I don't think he's gotten any other invites. And he's done plenty of shopping around. I don't think he'll prove it by himself.

I'd recommend his two books.

Edited December 2, 2012 by DWA

[Guest poignant]

It's easy to cherry-pick evidence and scoff at the inadequacy of individual reports, but the cumulative weight of sightings, accounts, and footage MUST contain some veracity. All it takes is ONE unequivocal sighting to warrant further research, and I daresay the unequivocal sightings number in the hundreds.

Catch-22: professional scientists eschew the topic because it is a career-killer. Therefore the likelihood is low that evidence will be collected by professional scientists. It follows that the next best option is to have amateurs go in the field and try to collect evidence, oh wait, that's exactly what's going on.

For fun. Don't you like debates? It would be boring if everyone argeed on everything.

By his own admission, Jerrymanderer is arguing for the sake of arguing.

.

Edited December 2, 2012 by poignant

[Guest]

I personally don't have any problem with what scientist do. I know several scientist who are very interested in Bigfoot, and even share the opinion that there is something to this all. They may seem skeptical, because that is how they approach things, but they certainly agree, something is going on, and they are interested in what the bottom line is. But they are real scientist, with scientifically open minds, and they don't take much stock in the scoftic ways of most of the "skeptics" here. When they see the amount of evidence, and the way it has appeared over the entire history of the North American continent, they don't assume drugs, mass hysteria, or a giant confusion problem with bears. I like how the pseudo science scoftics try to jump on the scientific band wagon, "Science agree's with us, there is no Bigfoot". no, science agree's there has not been enough hard evidence to come up with a classification or confirmation. I have yet to see anyone here, that has impressed me enough, that I would consider them even remotely the "voice of science"

The continued reference to the elbe track way as way to discredit all track ways, to me, continues to smack of attempts to salvage the original purpose of the hoax in the first place, something to consider.

I got to stop reading this thread. I think I am done with it.

Edited December 2, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest DWA]

It's easy to cherry-pick evidence and scoff at the inadequacy of individual reports, but the cumulative weight of the sightings and footage MUST contain some veracity. All it takes is ONE unequivocal sighting to warrant further research, and I daresay the unequivocal sightings number in the hundreds.

Catch-22: professional scientists eschew the topic because it is a career-killer. Therefore the likelihood is low that evidence will be collected by professional scientists. It follows that the next best option is to have amateurs go in the field and try to collect evidence, oh wait, that's exactly what's going on.

Well, yeah. The intensity with which the gaping hole left in biological research by the mainstream is getting filled by amateurs you might think might embarrass the mainstream into more action, but guess not. Problem is: intensity is a poor substitute for money and time. And of course, the career-killer thing is at the heart of my view of the mainstream's involvement. I think that, at the very least, the major journals in the field should stop coming to conclusions unwarranted by evidence, and talk about the field as wide open to new blood. Science isn't training a new generation of biologists to go where curiosity and evidence lead. That's a shame. Because that doesn't take money and time; it takes attitude and leadership. For the mainstream to chuckle at unsolved mysteries is unbecoming science. I don't even mind if the mainstream stays out of the search, if they would stop the career-killing and snickering.

By his own admission, Jerrymanderer is arguing for the sake of arguing.

True that. As I noted, I like to argue with people that have read up better.

.